Europe, Britain and the West are pinned down by Sleep Paralysis beneath the weight of Islam and Muslim Immigration

Sometimes an image — a metaphor — is much more effective at presenting truth than even the most persuasive argument or laying out of facts. ‘The Nightmare’ is such an image.

Europeans may still have some dim collective memory of the Muslim conquest of the Iberian peninsula (Spain) in the early 8th century, of Islam’s nearly successful colonization of the rest of Western Europe (Gaul, etc.), of centuries of Muslim raids on Italy, of Muslim piracy and dominance in the Mediterranean Sea, of repeated Muslim attempts to invade Europe through the Balkans, and of the eventual fall of Constantinople in 1453, and of Turkish crimes against the Greeks during the 18th and 19th centuries and the Armenian Genocide in the early 20th.

Then there are the great, providential battles and movements which halted, turned back and expelled the Muslim invaders from the West: Charles Martel (“the Hammer”) and his victory in the Battle of Tours (732), the “Reconquista” of Spain, the valiant self-sacrifice of Tsar-Martyr Lazar and the Serbs at the Battle of Kosovo (1389), and the famous defense of Europe against the Ottoman Muslims at the Gates of Vienna in 1683.

Yet today’s Europe seems completely moribund, ignoring both its own history as well as the history of Islamic expansion.

It is as if Europa and her Sisters (England, America, Canada, Australia, etc.) suffer from a nightmarish sleep paralysis like helpless maidens of old, the Islamic incubus pinning her down and completely sapping her will and strength to resist.

The British have all but surrendered already, turning a blind eye to Muslim rape gangs preying on thousands of British girls, trampling on freedom of speech by shutting down criticism of Islam, and advancing Sharia courts and Islamic finance systems. The realm which gave us the Magna Carta is behaving as if she may voluntarily raise the black flag of jihad over Buckingham Palace, a final token act of appeasement as the Islamic crocodile gnaws on England’s extremities.

The metaphor of the demonic Incubus (Islam) preying upon the paralyzed sleeper (Europa) is hardly a stretch, as this particular demon was believed to engage in sexual activity with its victim, trying to foster a hybrid human-demon child, and if unable to do that, then to bring about madness, demon possession, sickness and ultimately death to its host.

Does this not describe the horrific nightmare being played out in cities across Europe and England? Muslim immigration (the “Incubus”) literally “penetrates” Western societies (the “Sleeper-Victim”), creating hostile, alien enclaves which begin in embryonic form, but eventually give birth to hellish Shariah No-Go zones. By the time the somnambulant host begins to awaken, it has been driven nearly mad from its inner conflict between liberal freedoms and its weakened impulse to defend itself. A quick survey of the evil, supremacist behavior of Muslim populations in France, Sweden, Denmark, et al bear witness to this plague.

The great irony of this pathological societal inner conflict is that those enabling the destruction of Western civilization through advocating Muslim immigration and preferential treatment of Islam routinely demonize with the charge of “Islamophobia” those who see the dangers of Islam and dare to speak out against it. Those who willingly aid and abet the Incubus and gladly receive its demon seed accuse Christians and lovers of freedom of being demons.

The United States now seems at least to be trying to rouse herself from her political atonia(symptomized by the Obama administration scrubbing all national security directives from any reference to Islam, which inspires 90% of all terrorist acts worldwide), yet under this administration cannot and will not confront the actual root cause of Muslim terrorism and jihad, which is embedded in Islam’s DNA through the Quran and the example of Muhammad.

America’s problem thus seems to be less a case of paralysis, and more one of volition. For example, 4-star Admiral James Lyons, former Commander of the US Pacific Fleet, recently reported that the Muslim Brotherhood has “penetrated” (there’s that word again) all of Obama’s National Security agencies. And the President’s ‘Summit on Countering Violent Extremism’ actually includes as one of its partners the terrorist-and-ISIS-linked Islamic Society of Boston.

The Islamic State sees Europe’s paralysis and America’s moral and ideological disarray, hence its ever increasing boldness. And Muslims the world over see it too, hence reports that tens of thousands of Muslims from all around the globe, including from Western democracies, are streaming to the Levant to join the Islamic State, even as Muslim immigration into Western host societies continues to escalate.

Are we in the early stages of a long defeat, leading to the death of a once-great civilization?

Unless paralyzed and catatonic Europa and her Sisters can shake off their sleep and throw off the Incubus pinning them down, the night looks long and the future dark indeed.

_______

Ralph Sidway is an Orthodox Christian researcher and writer, and author of Facing Islam: What the Ancient Church has to say about the Religion of Muhammad. He operates the Facing Islam blog.

Four Marines and one sailor who were killed in the Chattanooga shooting reportedly will only be eligible to receive Purple Heart awards if the FBI declares the shooter had ties to a terror organization.

The FBI has only referred to Mohammad Youssuf Abdulazeez as a “homegrown violent extremist.”

“Determination of eligibility will have to wait until all the facts are gathered and the FBI investigation is complete,” Marine Corps public affairs officer Maj. Clark Carpenter told the Marine Corps Times.

On “The Kelly File” tonight, Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer (Ret.) said that it’s clear that Abdulazeez was a terrorist, and the FBI and the Obama administration are intentionally trying to “disconnect the dots.”

“There is absolutely no doubt by any thinking person, anyone who’s rational, that this was a terror attack,” Shaffer said. “If you don’t find a direct link between ISIS or Al Qaeda, it doesn’t matter. It meets the criteria.”

Megyn Kelly pointed out that the families of these deceased service members stand to lose Purple Heart benefits if the awards are not approved.

“It’s a substantive loss to them,” she explained.

“This is totally insane,” Shaffer said. “It goes against the factual evidence, and it’s just the wrong thing.”

PC: After a Muslim terrorist gunned down unarmed Marines in Tennessee, the head of Homeland Security revealed a policy to downplay any Islamic role in such terror. The feds are now blindfolding each other on the threat.

Homeland Security chief Jeh Johnson refuses to call Islamic terror “Islamic,” arguing it’s “critical” to refrain from the label in order to “build trust” among Muslims.

In jaw-dropping remarks Friday at Aspen Institute’s annual security forum, Johnson said the government will call such attacks “violent extremism” over “Islamic terrorism” out of respect for the Muslim community.

The policy explains why the U.S. prosecutor and lead FBI investigator in the Chattanooga case still insist on calling Mohammad Abdulazeez a “homegrown violent extremist,” though he blogged about his religious motivations for the attack, and he and his family attended a local mosque controlled by a terror-tied Islamic trust.

Johnson says that dismissing the religious dimension of the widening homegrown Islamic terror threat is part of a strategy to gain the “cooperation” of the Muslim community. He says that if officials called Islamic terrorism “Islamic,” they’d “get nowhere.”

Even the moderator was dumbfounded: “Isn’t government denying the fundamental religious component of this kind of extremism by not using the word Islamic?” “I could not disagree more,” Johnson retorted, arguing that Islam “is about peace.”

Earth to Johnson: You already are “nowhere.” The FBI director warns that he can’t keep up with all the homegrown Muslim terrorism cases cropping up now in all 50 states. Chattanooga is just the latest tragic example of the FBI and DHS missing plots in the pipeline.

And what fruit has pandering to local Muslim leaders produced? U.S. Attorney Bill Killian helped dedicate Abdulazeez’s mosque at its grand opening in 2012, even befriended its leader. Did Islamic Society of Greater Chattanooga president Bassam Issa tip him off about Abdulazeez’s radicalization? Did he stop him from driving down the street and opening fire on two military sites?

An internal PowerPoint document shows that mosque leaders were busy invoking the names of radical Muslim Brotherhood leaders to raise money for the mosque, leaders like Sheikh Qaradawi, who once issued a fatwa calling on Muslims to kill U.S. soldiers.

Instead of investigating the mosque and its leaders, the feds have stepped up their groveling.

The notion that Muslim leaders are helping us is totally bogus. In one Islamic State hot spot, Minneapolis, the local Muslim leaders are “cooperating” by demanding that the FBI release jailed IS terrorist suspects. In Boston, congregants of a mosque attended by the Boston marathon bombers are “cooperating” by holding fundraisers and rallies for convicted al-Qaida- and IS-tied terrorists.

Johnson, like his boss, are delusional: Their strategy of “winning hearts and minds” already has failed. So now it’s up to state and local authorities to take this fight from the feds and put down this growing insurgency themselves. They can start by passing a law that allows authorities to press legal action not just against terrorists but also any of their supporters in the Muslim community.

A Tennessee senator frustrated over the slow pace of the federal investigation in Chattanooga introduced a bill that passed implementing Andy’s Law, named after Pvt. Andrew Long, the Little Rock Army recruiter murdered by terrorist Abdulhakim Muhammad.

Arkansas, Louisiana and Kansas have also passed the anti-terror law, and North Carolina is on the verge of doing so. Letting victims of terrorism seek damages from individuals and organizations that provide material support to terrorists will go a long way to filling the investigative void left by PC-paralyzed Washington.

Every so often, there is a massacre. Sometimes the monsters who commit them have names like Dylann Roof, but more often than not they have names like Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez or Nidal Malik Hasan. Given the fact that the vast majority of people in America are Christian, and only a small minority are Muslim, the preponderance of Muslim mass killers only further highlights the disproportionate number of killers who come from that community.

Let’s be very direct: a substantial minority of Muslims in the world support terrorism and genocide. That has to be true for organizations like ISIS, the Taliban, Boko Haram, al-Qaeda, al-Shabaab, and so on to exist. These are large organizations, and they cannot exist without members and supporters, most (but not all) of them from countries in the Middle East.

Does it make sense, then, that we allow immigration of Muslims into the U.S.? Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez was a Muslim Palestinian immigrant from Kuwait. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who bombed the Boston Marathon, was a Muslim immigrant from Kyrgyzstan.

They both killed many people. And they are not the only ones. Most Muslims we let into the United States will not become mass murderers. But the problem is that a substantial minority of them sympathize with mass murderers, and some of those will go on to actually become mass murderers. And the biggest point to make is that there is often no way for authorities to distinguish between a “conservative religious Muslim” and a “conservative religious Muslim who will commit mass murder.”

Given that, does it not make sense that we should limit immigration of Muslims into America? If this were World War II, would we admit immigrants from Germany? If this were the 1950s, would we admit immigrants from Korea, or from North Vietnam in the 1960s? Of course not. Because we were at war with them.

Let’s be frank: we are currently at war with a extremely violent and radical minority of the Muslim population of the world. When they are off the battlefield, they are often impossible to identify. Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez was not on anyone’s radar. He seemed like a normal middle-class boy (well, normal except for the marijuana and the use of a “white powdery substance” under his nose that he told the police was caffeine powder).

Given that, why can’t we speak frankly and say, “We don’t know who these killers are in advance. But quite frequently they are foreign-born Muslims, some of whom we are at war with, or more to the point feel that they are at war with us. Why shouldn’t we have a discussion about limiting their entry into the United States?”

You know, if we had white immigrants from South Africa, and a minority of those were mass-murdering blacks in America, you can bet that immigration would be stopped immediately. Why should this be any different?

If people can be made to understand that open borders and the importation of Muslim refugees has a part in mass murders, perhaps minds can be changed. Politicians call dismissively for “better screening,” but how can you really look into the background of thousands of people from a third-world country? Unless they are already on a terrorist watch list, what the State Department does is basically take them at their word.

If people could be made to realize that this “screening” is a sham, perhaps minds could be changed.

Above all, we have to fight the racism or “Islamophobia” tag. A phobia, after all, is a fear not based in reality. But this fear is based on a very real threat. We take our first steps when each of us speaks out. The left silences us by making us afraid to talk. But if enough of us start talking about it, it will create a space that will be acceptable. That’s what Mark Levin does, making topics acceptable so other hosts can talk about them. And on a smaller scale, you can do it, too, in your own community with your friends and neighbors. (Unless you live in New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, or D.C.)

It is clear to all who have functioning cerebral cortexes what the problem is. Jihadis are on the march. Law enforcement and military personnel are being openly targeted. They say it is a command from Allah to wage jihad in order to establish an Islamic State (Caliphate) under Sharia (Islamic Law).

Yesterday a 24 year old Muslim male named Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez killed four Marines and injured several others in a shooting at a reserve center in Chattanooga, Tennessee.

Abdulazeez had a blog page on which he wrote: “Don’t let the society we live in deviate you from the task at hand. Take your study guide, the Quran and the Sunnah, with strength and faith, and be firm as you live your short live in this prison called Dunya. Because Islam is a comprehensive religion we need to know everything from its message. The more comprehensive our knowledge of it is, the better our understanding of it will be and what goes on around us.”

Another misunderstander of Islam.

We see the playbook open again.

1. The jihadi makes clear why he is doing what he is doing. It’s Islamic jihad stupid.

2. The news tells us they cannot understand why he would do this because he is a recent college graduate with a “well-paying job” as an electrical engineer.

3. The FBI and DHS tell us they have not found any “direct ties to terrorist organizations like ISIS.”

4. The FBI/DHS and the media tell us Abdulazeez is a “classic lone wolf.”

5. DHS Response: Enhance security at federal facilities.

6. Hamas, doing business as “CAIR” tells us they condemn this attack and the media dutifully regurgitate the Hamas talking points.

7. The President asks for prayers for the family, but doesn’t follow it up with going after the root of the problem, and continues to openly support the Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas.

8. The problem – the massive Islamic network in the U.S. supporting, financing, training, recruiting, and teaching jihad and the destruction of anything but nations under sharia – is left untouched.

9. No one mentions that core Islamic doctrine mandates jihad until the world is under Islamic rule (even though it is taught to first grade Islamic students across the globe).

10. US Attorney Bill Killian in Tennessee, who has a long history of snuggling up to Hamas and MB organizations while condemning those who speak truth about this threat, won’t be questioned, indicted, or in anyway made to answer for his role in failing to go after the jihadis in his area under his watch. (Same guy who condemned UTT training and then the week after we left TN had a joint FBI/DHS training program with the local MB organizations).

11. America is still in grave danger from the Islamic Movement here. No change (but expect more sensitivity training so we don’t offend the Muslims by reporting this “incident”).

“If we deny any connection between terrorism and religion, then we are saying there is no problem in any of the mosques; that there is nothing in the religious texts that is capable of being twisted or misunderstood; that there are no religious leaders whipping up hatred of the West, no perverting of religious belief for political ends.” — Boris Johnson, Mayor of London.

“O Muslims, Islam was never for a day the religion of peace. Islam is the religion of war… Mohammed was ordered to wage war until Allah is worshipped alone… He himself left to fight and took part in dozens of battles. He never for a day grew tired of war. — Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, leader of the Islamic State.

While Western politicians claim that the Islamic State is not Islamic, millions of Muslims around the world — referring to what is approved in the Islamic texts — believe that it is.

The BBC has rejected demands by British lawmakers to stop using the term “Islamic State” when referring to the jihadist group that is carving out a self-declared Caliphate in the Middle East.

Lord Hall of Birkenhead, the BBC’s director general, said that the proposed alternative, “Daesh,” is pejorative and using it would be unfair to the Islamic State, thereby casting doubt upon the BBC’s impartiality.

Prime Minister David Cameron recently joined the growing chorus of British politicians who argue that the name “Islamic State” is offensive to Muslims and should be banned from the English vocabulary.

During an interview with BBC Radio 4’s “Today” program on June 29 — just days after a jihadist with links to the Islamic State killed 38 people (including 30 Britons) at a beach resort in Tunisia — Cameron rebuked veteran presenter John Humphrys for referring to the Islamic State by its name.

When Humphrys asked Cameron whether he regarded the Islamic State to be an existential threat, Cameron said:

“I wish the BBC would stop calling it ‘Islamic State’ because it is not an Islamic state. What it is is an appalling, barbarous regime. It is a perversion of the religion of Islam, and, you know, many Muslims listening to this program will recoil every time they hear the words ‘Islamic State.'”

Humphrys responded by pointing out that the group calls itself the Islamic State (al-Dawlah al-Islamiyah, Arabic for Islamic State), but he added that perhaps the BBC could use a modifier such as “so-called” in front of that name.

Cameron replied: “‘So-called’ or ISIL [the acronym for Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant] is better.” He continued:

“But it is an existential threat, because what is happening here is the perversion of a great religion, and the creation of this poisonous death cult, that is seducing too many young minds, in Europe, in America, in the Middle East and elsewhere.

“And this is, I think, going to be the struggle of our generation. We have to fight it with everything that we can.”

Later that day in the House of Commons, Cameron repeated his position. Addressing Cameron, Scottish National Party MP Angus Robertson said that the English-speaking world should adopt Daesh, the Arabic name for the Islamic State, as the proper term.

Daesh, which translates as Islamic State of Iraq and Sham (Syria), is the Arabic equivalent to ISIL. Daesh sounds similar to the Arabic word “Daes,” which means “one who crushes something underfoot,” and “Dahes,” which means “one who sows discord.” As a result of this play on words, Daesh has become a derogatory name for the Islamic State, and its leaders have threatened to “cut the tongue” of anyone who uses the word in public.

“You are right to highlight the longer-term challenge of extremism and of radicalization. You have pointed out the importance of getting terminology right and not using the name ‘Islamic State.’ Will you join parliamentarians across this house, the US secretary of state and the French foreign minister in using the appropriate term?

“Do you agree the time has come in the English-speaking world to stop using Islamic State, ISIS or ISIL and instead we and our media should use Daesh — the commonly used phrase across the Middle East?”

Cameron replied:

“I agree with you in terms of the use of Islamic State. I think this is seen as particularly offensive to many Muslims who see, as I see, not a state but a barbaric regime of terrorism and oppression that takes delight in murder and oppressing women, and murdering people because they’re gay. I raised this with the BBC this morning.

“I personally think that using the term ‘ISIL’ or ‘so-called’ would be better than what they currently do. I don’t think we’ll move them all the way to Daesh so I think saying ISIL is probably better than Islamic State because it is neither in my view Islamic nor a state.”

Separately, more than 100 MPs signed a June 25 letter to the BBC’s director general calling on the broadcaster to begin using the term Daesh when referring to the Islamic State. The letter, which was drafted by Rehman Chishti, a Pakistani-born Conservative MP, stated:

“The use of the titles: Islamic State, ISIL and ISIS gives legitimacy to a terrorist organization that is not Islamic nor has it been recognized as a state and which a vast majority of Muslims around the world finds despicable and insulting to their peaceful religion.”

Scottish Nation Party MP Alex Salmond, in a June 29 newspaper column, wrote:

“We should start by understanding that in a propaganda war language is crucial.

“Any description of terrorists which confers on them the image that they are representing either a religion or a state must surely be wrong and an own goal of massive proportions. It is after all how they wish to refer to themselves.

“Many Arabic-speaking media organizations refer to the group as such and there is an argument it is appropriately pejorative, deriving from a mixture of rough translations from the individual Arabic words.

“However, the real point of using Daesh is that it separates the terrorists from the religion they claim to represent and from the false dream of a new caliphate that they claim to pursue.

“It should become the official policy of the government and be followed by the broadcasting organizations.”

The BBC, which routinely refers to Muslims as “Asians” to comply with the politically correct norms of British multiculturalism, has held its ground. It said:

“No one listening to our reporting could be in any doubt what kind of organization this is. We call the group by the name it uses itself, and regularly review our approach. We also use additional descriptions to help make it clear we are referring to the group as they refer to themselves, such as ‘so-called Islamic State.'”

The presenter of the BBC’s “The World This Weekend” radio program, Mark Mardell, added:

“It seems to me, once we start passing comment on the accuracy of the names people call their organizations, we will constantly be expected to make value judgements. Is China really a ‘People’s Republic?’ After the Scottish referendum, is the UK only the ‘so-called United Kingdom?’ With the Greek debacle, there is not much sign of ‘European Union.'”

London Mayor Boris Johnson believes both viewpoints are valid. In a June 28 opinion article published by the Telegraph, he wrote:

“Rehman’s point is that if you call it Islamic State you are playing their game; you are dignifying their criminal and barbaric behavior; you are giving them a propaganda boost that they don’t deserve, especially in the eyes of some impressionable young Muslims. He wants us all to drop the terms, in favor of more derogatory names such as “Daesh” or “Faesh,” and his point deserves a wider hearing.

“But then there are others who would go much further, and strip out any reference to the words “Muslim” or “Islam” in the discussion of this kind of terrorism — and here I am afraid I disagree….

“Why do we seem to taint a whole religion by association with a violent minority? …

“Well, I am afraid there are two broad reasons why some such association is inevitable. The first is a simple point of language, and the need to use terms that everyone can readily grasp. It is very difficult to bleach out all reference to Islam or Muslim from discussion of this kind of terror, because we have to pinpoint what we are actually talking about. It turns out that there is virtually no word to describe an Islamically-inspired terrorist that is not in some way prejudicial, at least to Muslim ears.

“You can’t say “Salafist,” because there are many law-abiding and peaceful Salafists. You can’t say jihadi, because jihad — the idea of struggle — is a central concept of Islam, and doesn’t necessarily involve violence; indeed, you can be engaged in a jihad against your own moral weakness. The only word that seems to carry general support among Muslim leaders is Kharijite — which means a heretic — and which is not, to put it mildly, a word in general use among the British public.

“We can’t just call it “terrorism”, as some have suggested, because we need to distinguish it from any other type of terrorism — whether animal rights terrorists or Sendero Luminoso Marxists. We need to speak plainly, to call a spade a spade. We can’t censor the use of “Muslim” or “Islamic.”

“That just lets too many people off the hook. If we deny any connection between terrorism and religion, then we are saying there is no problem in any of the mosques; that there is nothing in the religious texts that is capable of being twisted or misunderstood; that there are no religious leaders whipping up hatred of the west, no perverting of religious belief for political ends.”

What does the leader of the Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, have to say? In a May 2015 audio message, he summed it up this way:

“O Muslims, Islam was never for a day the religion of peace. Islam is the religion of war. Your Prophet (peace be upon him) was dispatched with the sword as a mercy to the creation. He was ordered to wage war until Allah is worshipped alone. He (peace be upon him) said to the polytheists of his people, ‘I came to you with slaughter.’ He fought both the Arabs and non-Arabs in all their various colors. He himself left to fight and took part in dozens of battles. He never for a day grew tired of war.

“So there is no excuse for any Muslim who is capable of performing hijrah [migration] to the Islamic State, or capable of carrying a weapon where he is, for Allah (the Blessed and Exalted) has commanded him with hijrah and jihad, and has made fighting obligatory upon him.”

While Western politicians claim that the Islamic State is not Islamic, millions of Muslims around the world — referring to what is approved in the Islamic texts — believe that it is. While the former are performing politically correct linguistic gymnastics, the latter are planning their next religiously-inspired attacks against the West. A new twist on an old English adage: The sword is mightier than the pen.

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-basedGatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him onFacebook and onTwitter.

Not only do recent revelations concerning the endemic sexual grooming of British girls by Muslim men demonstrate how crippling political correctness is, but they show how political correctness complements the most abusive elements of Islamic law, or Sharia.

According to a June 24 report by the Birmingham Mail, as far back as March 2010, West Midlands Police knew that Muslim grooming gangs “were targeting children outside schools across the city—but failed to make the threat public.”

A confidential report obtained under a Freedom of Information Act indicates that police were well aware that British pupils were being targeted by mostly Muslim men. Several passages from the report make this clear:

In one heavily redacted passage, entitled ‘Schools’, it states: “In (redacted) a teacher at a (redacted) that a group of Asian males were approaching pupils at the school gate and grooming them. Strong anecdotal evidence shows this MO (modus operandi) is being used across the force.”

The 2010 report also reveals how these “Asian” gangs used victims to target other girls. For example, by using “a young girl in a children’s home to target and groom other residents on their behalf…. The girl’s motivation to recruit new victims is often that the provision of new girls provides her a way to escape the cycle of abuse.”

Other victims were systematically “forced into prostitution and high levels of intimidation and force are used to keep the victims compliant.”

Although police knew all this, the Birmingham Mail said it “is unaware of any police public appeals or warnings from that time”—appeals and warnings that no doubt would have saved many girls from the Islamic sex rings.

So what paralyzed police from any action, even warnings to the community? The report sheds light:

The predominant offender profile of Pakistani Muslim males… combined with the predominant victim profile of white females has the potential to cause significant community tensions…. There is a potential for a backlash against the vast majority of law abiding citizens from Asian/Pakistani communities from other members of the community believing their children have been exploited.

Once again, then, political correctness—this time under the pretext of fear of a “backlash”—was enough to paralyze the police from arresting Muslim sex predators and releasing their victims.

And what if a “backlash” were to occur? Why is it okay for innocent children to be plied with drugs and passed around in kabob shops and taxicabs while police standby—but it’s not okay for the so-called “majority of law abiding citizens from Asian/Pakistani communities” to ever experience anything negative?

In reality, the great fear is that a backlash would demonstrate once and for all that multiculturalism—especially in the context of Islam—is an abysmal failure; it would be an admittance that even the West is part of the “real world,” one full of ugly truths that must be combatted, not merely “understood” or appeased.

Better sacrifice some British kids on the altar of multiculturalism than overturn the altar altogether.

It’s also interesting to see that political correctness not only exonerates Islamic-inspired crimes, but has a symbiotic relationship with the supremacist elements of Sharia.

For example, some know that, while Islamic law bans any mockery of its founder, Muhammad, so too does Western censorship in the name of political correctness accommodate this Sharia statute (meanwhile, Islamic teachings—based on the precedent of Muhammad—holds it the right of a Muslim tocurse, mock, and desecrate other religions).

In the case of Muslim-led sex grooming rings in Britain, just as Islamic law permits the sexual exploitation of “infidel” women, so too does Western political correctness allow it to flourish in Western lands.

Worst of all, it’s not just politicians and other jesters who are engaging in this form of Sharia-enabling political correctness. In the UK, it’s the very police departments themselves.

A top commander in southwest Asia reminded U.S military personnel stationed in Muslim countries in the Middle East of the restrictions placed on them during Ramadan. According to a report by the U.S. Air Forces Central Command Public Affairs, Brig. Gen. John Quintas, 380th Air Expeditionary Wing commander in Southwest Asia, said that the U.S. is “committed to the concepts of tolerance, freedom and diversity.” But he added that soldiers should “become more informed and appreciative of the traditions and history of the people in this region of the world… [R]emember we are guests here and that the host nation is our shoulder-to-shoulder, brothers and sisters in arms, risking their lives for our common cause to defeat terrorism.”

During the 30-day religious celebration of Ramadan, even non-Muslims are expected to obey local laws regarding eating, drinking, and using tobacco in public. Violators can be fined up to $685 or receive two months in jail. A spokesperson for United States Central Command [CENTCOM] said that “we are not aware of any specific instances of anyone being arrested” for such violations.

\For military personnel outside of U.S.-controlled areas, the only exceptions for the rules are for those “performing strenuous labor.” Such personnel are “authorized to drink and consume as much food as they need to maintain proper hydration and energy.” It is unclear what constitutes “strenuous labor” or whether additional exceptions might be made during a heatwave affecting some areas of the region that has taken hundreds of lives.

When asked if the restrictions were new or simply a continuation of past policy, a CENTCOM spokesperson replied:

There has been no change in policy… [W]hile the US does not have a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the UAE, it is common practice to ensure all Soldiers, Sailors, Airman, and Marines deployed to Muslim countries are culturally aware that during the month of Ramadan, practicing Muslims do not consume anything from sunrise to sunset as a pillar of their faith. Commanders throughout the AOR create policies to ensure their subordinates respect the laws and culture of our hosts at all times.

The report on CENTCOM’s website is accompanied by the following graphic urging military personnel to “respect Ramadan.”

The United States no longer has, as the Constitution designed, a government composed of executive, legislative and judicial branches, separate, but equal in power.

The federal government is now an alliance of branches, devoted to the preservation of government itself, separate, not from each other, but from the American people and dedicated to tyranny.

The policies pursued by the Obama Administration and facilitated by cowardly politicians and a compliant media are not simply the intersection of radical ideology and incompetence, but a dangerous subversive element of an anti-American and anti-Western strategy.

Cultural Marxism and its many variants, such as political correctness and multiculturalism, is now firmly ensconced in the White House and the Democrat Party, while the Republican Party, dominated by eunuchs and the avaricious, continuously accommodates its “principles” to match an ever-shifting leftward movement of the “conventional wisdom.” It does so solely in to maintain its place as the token opposition and grifter at the federal tax-revenue trough for the personal financial benefits that it provides.

After the successful 1917 communist revolution in Russia, it was widely believed that a proletarian revolt would sweep across Europe and, ultimately, North America. It did not.

As a result, the Communist International began to investigate other ways to create the state of societal hopelessness and alienation necessary as a prerequisite for socialist revolution – in essence, to destroy western democracy from within.

The single, most important organizational component of this conspiracy was a Communist think tank called the Institute for Social Research, popularly known as the Frankfurt School. The task of the Frankfurt School was first, to undermine the Judeo-Christian foundation of Western civilization that emphasized the uniqueness and sacredness of the individual and, second, to determine new cultural forms which would increase the disaffection of and division among the population.

Just as in classical economic Marxism, certain groups, i.e. workers and peasants, are a priori good, and other groups, i.e., the bourgeoisie and capital owners, are evil; in Cultural Marxism feminist women, racial and ethnic minorities and those who define themselves according to sexual orientation are deemed good and “victims” of societal injustice. Similarly, white males and “privilege” and, by extension, Western civilization, are automatically and irredeemably malevolent.

Sound familiar? It has been the playbook of the American left for over sixty years. The aim is not to solve social injustice or protect “rights, “of which the left can concoct an endless supply, but to undermine and topple Western democracy.

The new element in this formula, using the “enemy of my enemy is my friend” paradigm, is what David Horowitz described as an unholy alliance between leftists and radical Islam. They have been brought together by the traits they share – their hatred of Western civilization and their belief that the United States is the embodiment of evil on earth. While Islamic radicals seek to purge the world of heresies and of the infidels who practice them, leftist radicals seek to purge society’s collective “soul” of the vices allegedly spawned by capitalism — those being racism, sexism, imperialism, and greed.

That combination of these ultimately mutually exclusive, but temporarily useful, ideologies is arguably the modus operandi of Barack Hussein Obama and his inner circle with a larger cast of fellow travelers and useful idiots.

It is no surprise, then, that lying and secrecy have become the hallmarks of an administration immune both to facts and reason, plagued by contradictions and led by an individual with the impatience and petulance of an insecure adolescent from a political party with the emotional stability of a disgruntled postal worker.

Obama’s transformation is fundamentally the degradation and humbling of a great nation he considers venal and corrupt, but is, in reality, merely a description of the content of his own character.

He and his present anointed successor and Mini Me, Hillary Clinton, are manifestations of modern-day, totalitarian Liberalism, in its insatiable thirst for power, where persuasion is replaced by coercion to implement policies that are inherently damaging to liberty and the national interest.

Unfortunately, the federal government, as an institution, has largely come to reflect those same characteristics, the tyranny that led the Founding Fathers to declare independence.

In their effort to make the central government “too big to fail,” the political-media complex has made it too corrupt to reform.

It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government – Thomas Paine

A few days ago we posted video excerpts from one of the OSCE sessions in Vienna last month. Since then Vlad has been working on a slightly longer version using the same material. The video below includes additional comments made by the panelists, and more detailed annotations.

These excerpts were recorded at the OSCE Security Days at the Hofburg, Vienna, on May 21, 2015. The event was the Night Owl Session: “How can the media help prevent violent radicalization that leads to terrorism?” It was an official OSCE forum, with opening and closing remarks by OSCE Secretary General Lamberto Zannier.

Victor Khroul, a correspondent for Rossiya Segodnya International Information Agency and Associate Professor at Moscow State University. Rossiya Segodnya is wholly owned by the Russian government, as is MSU.

Leila Ghandi, a Moroccan presenter for 2M TV. She is “an award winning TV host journalist, producer, commentator, book author, speaker, photographer and civil society activist.” 68% of 2M TV is owned by the Moroccan government, with the Moroccan royal family owning 20.7%

Randa Habib, the director of the bureau of Agence France-Presse (AFP) in Amman, Jordan.

Dunja Mijatović, the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, from Bosnia

Simon Haselock, Albany Associates

So the panel consisted of a Russian, a Moroccan, a Jordanian, a Bosnian, and a Briton. No Poles. No Danes. No Czechs. No Italians. No one from a sensible European country.

It seems reasonable to assume that the Russian gentleman represents the Russian government. The three women hail from three Muslim countries that do not enforce the wearing of hijab. But are they otherwise representing the interests of the Ummah? Based on the contributions of Ms. Ghandi and Ms. Habib to the discussion about truth vs. “hate speech”, it is at least plausible that they are.

Simon Haselock is a promoter of “global governance”, UN-style. He is described as a “pioneer in media intervention in post-conflict countries” — that is, he helps the United Nations manage the news flow in areas where the “international community” has discovered a compelling interest.

In Sarajevo, [Simon] Haselock served as media spokesman for the Office of the High Representative, the European agency governing the Bosnians in the aftermath of the Dayton Agreement. In Kosovo, he became media commissioner.

The problem, in a nutshell: He’s British, and holds to a European view of how media should work, in terms of public responsibility, free expression, libel law, and similar issues. Haselock and others like him attempted to impose a European media regime on the Bosnian and Kosovar journalists, and there is every indication the same effort will be made in Iraq.

Put simply, this means that a governmental body will supervise media. It has already been reported that Haselock has written a proposal for control of broadcast and print media, including the establishment of state electronic media and the appointment of a board that will handle “complaints about media excesses” and levy fines for misconduct. These are exactly, down to the boilerplate vocabulary, the policies that were tried in Sarajevo and Prishtina. They failed miserably, and sometimes grotesquely.

IN BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA, the stated mission of foreign media administrators embodied pure political correctness: It was to separate media from nationalist self-expression and political parties. This meant that although Bosnian Muslims felt they had survived a deliberate attempt at genocide, and while Serbs and Croats felt they had legitimate communal demands to put forward, their journalists were forbidden from dealing with these topics. The argument of the “internationals,” as the foreigners in the Balkans love to style themselves, was that any such commentary would constitute hate speech and would incite further violence.

Same shtick, different decade.

In his remarks, Mr. Haselock references non-Islamic terror groups that sprang from European roots. What he does not mention is that we were allowed to call them by the names they called themselves. We called them the “Red Brigades”, the “Bader-Meinhof Group” [Red Army Faction], and the “Irish Republican Army”, and we identified their ideology at the same time — which is what allowed us to counter them.

The rules are different for any group that has “Islam” and “Muslim” in its name. In such cases we are told not use the name that the group uses for itself. We must instead identify it by a pseudonym invented by Simon Haselock or some other “media administrator”. And we must never, ever talk about Islamic ideology or sharia.

Mr. Haselock refers to “the narrative we are offering”. But whose universal values does such a narrative enforce? And against whom? And who decides?

In essence, the UN establishes narratives that are to be enforced against national identities as a requirement. Everyone on the OSCE panel supports these narratives and their enforcement.

This is the third edit of this video although the second one was only published for an hour or so, and deleted.

The reason for so much effort on it, is that two things make it very important that needed to be underlined in the video.

1. That this meeting and these panelists matter. They affect our lives

2. That their reasoning ranges from what appears to be a dedicated pursuance of an Alinksy narrative for the destruction of nation states world wide, to simple political correct naiveté at best.

I had the opportunity to sit down and go over it with one of the participants fully and this is the result. I hope you will all feel it is worth ploughing through for a second (and for a few of you, a third) time

A few weeks ago a PhD candidate at a British university sent us the following email.

I am a PhD student at [a major British institution of higher learning]. I am researching groups set up to oppose radical Islam in Europe and North America, including anti-Jihad, anti-Sharia and anti-halal organisations.

I would like to interview activists within these organisations, to help me understand how they became involved, what their concerns are about radical Islam, and how they are going about countering them.

I would welcome the opportunity to interview someone from Gates of Vienna as part of my research, given that it is one of the most prominent counter-jihad websites.

Depending on the questions, I’m not averse to answering such surveys, even though I know the all but universal multicultural agenda of the institutions that sponsor them. I wrote him back and told him that if he wanted to use my answers to compile statistical results, that was fine. But if he quoted me, I required that he include the entire questionnaire — all his questions and my answers in full — somewhere in his published material, even if only as an appendix. In the past, various Counterjihad people (including several of my friends) have had the unfortunate experience of being quoted out of context. This method at least makes the entire context available for anyone who is interested. Plus, of course, I am posting it here — I told him that I reserved the right to publish the entire interview myself.

When the questionnaire arrived, it was prefixed with an option to choose between two waivers:

Delete as appropriate: EITHER: I agree that these answers may be attributed to me in published materials; OR: I would prefer to remain anonymous in published materials.

Please note: There is no compulsion to answer any question. If you prefer not to answer a question, just leave the box blank.

I chose the second option, but appended a proviso:

I agree that these answers may be attributed to me in published materials provided that they are made available to readers in their entirety, including the complete wording of each question.

The questions and my responses are reproduced below in their entirety:

We put up our first post on October 9, 2004. For the first eight and a half years we were hosted for free at blogspot.com, under the aegis of Blogger (i.e. Google). Then, after a series of incidents in which our blog was closed or locked by Blogger, in January 2013 we moved to our own domain gatesofvienna.net hosted by a commercial service.

For the first couple of years most of the blogging was done by my wife Dymphna. After I was laid off in 2006, I started blogging more regularly. As Dymphna’s chronic illness worsened, I took on more tasks, and now perform most of them.

2. What is your role in Gates of Vienna?

I am the principal editor. We have a number of translators and contributors, and it is my job to edit their prose where appropriate, find and prepare images to use as illustrations, and do the general formatting for each post. This is in addition to writing an occasional post myself.

I also maintain the database used to create each day’s news feed, and write the programming code that makes it possible.

3. Were you involved in political activism before Gates of Vienna? If so, please indicate which organisations.

No, I was never politically active. My wife and I made modest campaign contributions to our congressman from time to time, but that was all.

4. How would you describe the purpose or aims of Gates of Vienna?

Our principal aim is to resist the Islamization of Western societies. More specifically, we want to prevent the imposition of Islamic law (sharia), which is encroaching on our legal system piecemeal at an increasing rate, by a process that is commonly known as the “stealth jihad”.

Examples of the new sharia-based rules include the “religiously-aggravated Section 5 public order offences” in the U.K., the “hate crime” prosecutions by the various Human Rights Commissions in Canada, and the prosecutions for the “denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion” in Austria. Numerous other examples may be found in almost all Western countries.

Sharia-based norms violate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as the constitutions of the countries in which they are implemented. In that sense they are illegal or extra-legal, and not in conformance with the law of the land.

Islamization is only making headway in the West because the existing cultural matrix has been damaged. For that reason, Gates of Vienna frequently examines other issues that pertain to our ongoing social and political breakdown.

5. What are the main challenges or obstacles you face in achieving these aims?

(a)

Lack of funding. Everything must by financed by small individual donations from readers.

(b)

The unwillingness of the legacy media to cover these issues in depth and without bias. Counterjihad people are routinely characterized as “racists” and “far-right”, while at the same time the issues we raise are virtually never examined on their merits.

(c)

The toxic smog of political correctness that shrouds all public discourse and prevents an honest discussion of Islam as a totalitarian political ideology, and not just as a religion.

6. What is Gates of Vienna’s relationship to the wider counterjihad movement?

As envisioned by the original participants in the 910 Group (later CVF and then ICLA), we function as a “network of networks”. That is, we help expedite contact and communication between and among individuals and groups that share the same broad Counterjihad goals.

When I say “we”, I mean the very loosely associated groups under the ICLA umbrella. Gates of Vienna serves as a clearinghouse and bulletin board for those groups and their leaders.

7. What is your assessment of the counterjihad at this point in time?

The Counterjihad is fairly fragmented and often at odds with itself. Cooperation across a broad spectrum of groups is relatively rare. Like the rest of the culture, the members of the loose constellation of groups and people who oppose Islamization are afraid of being called “racists”. That fear causes people to shy away each other if there is even a faint perception of “racism” on one side or another. For this reason broad, sustained coordination among groups is very difficult to achieve.

However, due to the rise of the Islamic State and the increasing incidence of atrocities committed by jihad groups, more and more people are becoming aware of the nature of the crisis that faces us. As a result, I can see our work becoming less difficult in the not-so-distant future — we will not be required to overcome as much initial resistance as has been true in the past.

“Racism” will eventually seem less important, given the immediacy of violent jihad and the illiberal cultural regimen imposed in areas that have accepted sharia rules.

8. If the counterjihad were to be successful, how would the world be different in twenty years’ time?

Your question doesn’t make any sense, because the Counterjihad can’t possibly achieve success within twenty years, or even forty. This is the “Long War”. I expect it to last at least two more generations. I will be long dead before there is any final resolution, so I’m reluctant to predict the shape of things to come.

Let’s just say that I expect that we will experience an undetermined number of grim and bloody decades before this is over.

9. If someone wanted to learn more about the issues discussed on Gates of Vienna, where would you direct them? For example, are there particular books, websites, or other resources that you would recommend?

As a starter, I recommend the book Among the Believers by V.S. Naipaul. After that, anything written by Robert Spencer in his books, or at JihadWatch.org, would help the reader become fully informed. To stay abreast of the violence and brutality of Islamic terrorists worldwide, people should read TheReligionOfPeace.com every day.

For comprehensive, in-depth analysis of sharia law and jihad, the bookCatastrophic Failure by Maj. Stephen Coughlin is highly recommended.

10. Are there any issues not covered in your previous responses that you think should also be considered as part of this research?

I would like to emphasize the importance of studying Islamic law. Until non-Muslims in the West grasp the essentials of sharia, they will remain confused and perplexed by current events involving Islam.

Sharia is based directly on core Islamic scriptures — the Koran, the hadith, and the sunna — and has not changed in any meaningful way in more than a thousand years. When one has acquired a basic understanding of how it all works, such disparate phenomena as Boko Haram, the Islamic State, Louis Farrakhan, the Taliban, Hamas, and Anjem Choudary begin to make sense. The interconnectedness of events concerning Islam — whether “moderate” or “radical” — will start to become clear.

After reading some of the books and websites mentioned earlier, interested citizens should acquire a copy of ’Umdat al-salik wa ’uddat al-nasik, or The reliance of the traveller and tools of the worshipper. It is commonly referred to as Reliance of the Traveller when cited in English.

This is an authoritative source on Sunni Islamic law, because it is certified as such by Al-Azhar University in Cairo. There is no higher authority on Sunni Islamic doctrine than Al-Azhar; it is the closest equivalent to the Vatican that can be found in Islam.

Maj. Stephen Coughlin is a retired U.S. Army officer and one of the foremost experts on Islamic law in the United States. For years he was well-known inside the Beltway for his “Red Pill” briefings of military commanders and defense officials on the topics of jihad and sharia. He was so effective in his work that the Muslim Brotherhood successfully arranged to have him pushed out of the Pentagon.

In the world at large, perception is reality. Moving our national holiday out of misplaced deference to a month long Islamic holiday gives the world a perception of US weakness. It was totally unnecessary since Muslims fast sunrise to sunset, and we could have simply held the event after dark. Some people see this as respectful and wonder what the bother is. But honor cultures, like Islam, see things differently and this appears as submission to them. Not a good thing when we are negotiating with Iran and losing a war to ISIS.